The mugshot is in The Herald News, the actual local newspaper. Opposing Views linked to it in their article, after plagiarizing what they read in The Herald News. I'm not joking about the plagiarizing bit, read both articles. Subby knew the Herald News article was the better and primary source but Opposing Views pretty clearly has a financial deal with Fark.com so in an attempt to get a greenlight, subby linked to the plagiarized version of it.

News is turning to shiat, Opposing Views a poster child for why. Getting this story took effort. Stealing it took probably 10 seconds. That's what's going to run actual news out of business.

Huh. No problems on the mobile version. I looked at both versions of the story, and no real difference in content. I expected an entirely different account of the events from "the real story", and left disappointed.

Sucks about the owner's broken window.

Is it "stand your ground", castle law, etc if the suspect is trying to flee your property?

This. Do the folks at Opposing Views have naked pictures of the last Fark office party or something? If the headline is about the mugshot, the link should go the article with the farking mugshot, not OP's text only summary.

focusthis:Huh. No problems on the mobile version. I looked at both versions of the story, and no real difference in content. I expected an entirely different account of the events from "the real story", and left disappointed.

Sucks about the owner's broken window.

Is it "stand your ground", castle law, etc if the suspect is trying to flee your property?

Only if they make it outside. And if that happens you just drag them back inside.

CheatCommando:This. Do the folks at Opposing Views have naked pictures of the last Fark office party or something? If the headline is about the mugshot, the link should go the article with the farking mugshot, not OP's text only summary.

Uhm... the Opposing Views article (and I use that term loosely) has a picture of the mugshot. It's identical to the one in the story they plagiarized from.

The homeowner should be charged with assault. His life was not in danger. No property is worth physical harm or endangering someones life. He should have backed off to a safe distance and called the police. He had no right to take the law into his own hand

MycroftHolmes:The homeowner should be charged with assault. His life was not in danger. No property is worth physical harm or endangering someones life. He should have backed off to a safe distance and called the police. He had no right to take the law into his own hand

That's ludicrous.

Leaving aside that most jurisdictions have laws specifically allowing you to protect your home (so-called castle laws), the idea that you have a duty to retreat from your home and leave a burglar in there is just insane.

The burglar is fortunate that the homeowner didn't kill him. Literally. Many jurisdictions recognize that the right to protect your home is so special and sacrosanct that killing the invader is justified so long as there's no evidence that the invader was actively trying to leave the home when the homeowner captured him.

lexnaturalis:CheatCommando: This. Do the folks at Opposing Views have naked pictures of the last Fark office party or something? If the headline is about the mugshot, the link should go the article with the farking mugshot, not OP's text only summary.

Uhm... the Opposing Views article (and I use that term loosely) has a picture of the mugshot. It's identical to the one in the story they plagiarized from.

Hmm. Not in my copy of Firefox. Maybe AdBlock is eating it and not for the real article.

mattharvest:MycroftHolmes: The homeowner should be charged with assault. His life was not in danger. No property is worth physical harm or endangering someones life. He should have backed off to a safe distance and called the police. He had no right to take the law into his own hand

That's ludicrous.

Leaving aside that most jurisdictions have laws specifically allowing you to protect your home (so-called castle laws), the idea that you have a duty to retreat from your home and leave a burglar in there is just insane.

The burglar is fortunate that the homeowner didn't kill him. Literally. Many jurisdictions recognize that the right to protect your home is so special and sacrosanct that killing the invader is justified so long as there's no evidence that the invader was actively trying to leave the home when the homeowner captured him.

Actually, I think I just proved Poe's law. I was trying to be over the top sarcastic, but it just doesn't look any different than a lot of the comments I see in these threads.

I would actually like to know why this guy decided to smash a window and take someone else's stuff. Psychological? Desperation? I mean, lots of folks lead a pretty good life not breaking into other people's places and stealing their stuff. Once you start doing that, do you ever give it up? Do you want to?

I'm okay with the owner smacking him around with a board with a nail in it, mind you. Just wondering about the motivation. I mean, yeah, it's easy to say "drugs" (and likely, too) but seriously, I'm thinking we're talking about a life led without much analysis of cause and effect.

MycroftHolmes:mattharvest: MycroftHolmes: The homeowner should be charged with assault. His life was not in danger. No property is worth physical harm or endangering someones life. He should have backed off to a safe distance and called the police. He had no right to take the law into his own hand

That's ludicrous.

Leaving aside that most jurisdictions have laws specifically allowing you to protect your home (so-called castle laws), the idea that you have a duty to retreat from your home and leave a burglar in there is just insane.

The burglar is fortunate that the homeowner didn't kill him. Literally. Many jurisdictions recognize that the right to protect your home is so special and sacrosanct that killing the invader is justified so long as there's no evidence that the invader was actively trying to leave the home when the homeowner captured him.

Actually, I think I just proved Poe's law. I was trying to be over the top sarcastic, but it just doesn't look any different than a lot of the comments I see in these threads.

I pride myself on not falling for Poe bait...but to be fair, I can't put my finger one what made me think "naw, he's not for realz..."

hubcity:I would actually like to know why this guy decided to smash a window and take someone else's stuff. Psychological? Desperation? I mean, lots of folks lead a pretty good life not breaking into other people's places and stealing their stuff. Once you start doing that, do you ever give it up? Do you want to?

I'm okay with the owner smacking him around with a board with a nail in it, mind you. Just wondering about the motivation. I mean, yeah, it's easy to say "drugs" (and likely, too) but seriously, I'm thinking we're talking about a life led without much analysis of cause and effect.

I don't think it is fair to punish him. He was clearly not ever taught right from wrong, and should not be accountable for his actions. I say give him 10 years probation and some counseling.

MycroftHolmes:hubcity: I would actually like to know why this guy decided to smash a window and take someone else's stuff. Psychological? Desperation? I mean, lots of folks lead a pretty good life not breaking into other people's places and stealing their stuff. Once you start doing that, do you ever give it up? Do you want to?

I'm okay with the owner smacking him around with a board with a nail in it, mind you. Just wondering about the motivation. I mean, yeah, it's easy to say "drugs" (and likely, too) but seriously, I'm thinking we're talking about a life led without much analysis of cause and effect.

I don't think it is fair to punish him. He was clearly not ever taught right from wrong, and should not be accountable for his actions. I say give him 10 years probation and some counseling.

hubcity:MycroftHolmes: mattharvest: MycroftHolmes: The homeowner should be charged with assault. His life was not in danger. No property is worth physical harm or endangering someones life. He should have backed off to a safe distance and called the police. He had no right to take the law into his own hand

That's ludicrous.

Leaving aside that most jurisdictions have laws specifically allowing you to protect your home (so-called castle laws), the idea that you have a duty to retreat from your home and leave a burglar in there is just insane.

The burglar is fortunate that the homeowner didn't kill him. Literally. Many jurisdictions recognize that the right to protect your home is so special and sacrosanct that killing the invader is justified so long as there's no evidence that the invader was actively trying to leave the home when the homeowner captured him.

Actually, I think I just proved Poe's law. I was trying to be over the top sarcastic, but it just doesn't look any different than a lot of the comments I see in these threads.

I pride myself on not falling for Poe bait...but to be fair, I can't put my finger one what made me think "naw, he's not for realz..."

mattharvest:MycroftHolmes: The homeowner should be charged with assault. His life was not in danger. No property is worth physical harm or endangering someones life. He should have backed off to a safe distance and called the police. He had no right to take the law into his own hand

That's ludicrous.

Leaving aside that most jurisdictions have laws specifically allowing you to protect your home (so-called castle laws), the idea that you have a duty to retreat from your home and leave a burglar in there is just insane.

The burglar is fortunate that the homeowner didn't kill him. Literally. Many jurisdictions recognize that the right to protect your home is so special and sacrosanct that killing the invader is justified so long as there's no evidence that the invader was actively trying to leave the home when the homeowner captured him.

I guess he missed the part in TFA that says the burglar "lunged" at him.. Accurate or not, it doesn't matter..The dude was in he house, he broke a window to get in, he was rifling the house forphat loots. You break in, you take your chances..You just might get the crap beaten out of you if your caught, you might also get a load of buckshot..

Dimensio:Unless burglary in Rhode Island is normally punishable by a brutal physical beating, I do not understand why the vigilante home occupant was not arrested and charged with assault and battery.

Because he was doing what he had every farking right to do. What's your address? I want to get me some free stuff since I have no reason to fear a beat down when I walk right past you in your easy chair and lift the flat screen off your wall and take the lap top out of your lap.

I do not understand the need to take the law into your own hands unless it is an absolute life or death situation. Homeowner should have locked himself in a room or fled and called the police. Let the professionals handle criminals.